Slashdot Mirror


6 Million Americans Exposed To High Levels of Chemicals In Drinking Water, Says Study (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider: A new study out Tuesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters looked at a national database that monitors chemical levels in drinking water and found that 6 million people were being exposed to levels of a certain chemical that exceed what the Environmental Protection Agency considers healthy. The chemicals, known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, are synthetic and resistant to water and oil, which is why they're used in things like pizza boxes and firefighting foam. They're built to withstand the environment. But PFASs also accumulate in people and animals and have been observationally linked to an increased risk of health problems including cancer. And they can't be easily avoided, like with a water filter, for example. You can view the chart to see the tested areas of the U.S. where PFASs exceed 70 ng/L, which is what's considered a healthy lifetime exposure.

166 comments

  1. But they have great teeth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may be dying but they have great teeth!

    1. Re: But they have great teeth! by mandy2tom · · Score: 1

      There are over 30,000 small water districts with less than 1000 people

    2. Re: But they have great teeth! by mandy2tom · · Score: 1

      I tried a filter it clogged in less than a week. There are 240 homes in my district. Sometimes the water is darker after you flush

    3. Re: But they have great teeth! by mandy2tom · · Score: 1

      A 5 gallon bucket filled when the water is dirty and left to settle will yield an 1/8 of an inch of brown sludge. To wash whites I have to use peroxide because bleach sets rust stains in whites

    4. Re: But they have great teeth! by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      A 5 gallon bucket filled when the water is dirty and left to settle will yield an 1/8 of an inch of brown sludge. To wash whites I have to use peroxide because bleach sets rust stains in whites

      Water softener maybe? That also filters the water.

  2. You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Alex Jones sells several excellent models, from table-top to RO. I highly recommend the Big Berkey with the LED lights. Just get the one made from stainless steel, not plastic.

    1. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded. And you should get two filters, in the event the government confiscates your first filter.

    2. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're buying anything Alex Jones is selling, you've already been drinking something tainted..

    3. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke is only funny if it suggests something vaguely plausible. Next time, RTFS: "And they can't be easily avoided, like with a water filter, for example." -PCP

    4. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But PFASs also accumulate in people and animals and have been observationally linked to an increased risk of health problems including cancer. And they can't be easily avoided, like with a water filter, for example.

      Maybe you should try reading.

    5. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does it filter DHMO? I hear there are dangerously high levels of that in the water supply.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh brother. Most (all?) of these things work using activated charcoal. You're paying for the knowledge that a given configuration of filter containing that substance will filter your problem for a well-known period of time before it becomes saturated and you need to replace it. Surely somebody like Consumer Reports must have tested this. Find such a report, and follow its recommendation.

    7. Re: You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many types of water filters. Which types is this stuff resistant to?

    8. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Deagol · · Score: 2

      I've owned a classic Big Berkey for about 10 years. The filters, while expensive, are the best of their class (gravity fed). You can see, taste, and smell the difference.

      I don't know how impartial waterfilterlabs.com is, nor how rigid their testing methodology is, but the top of the line Berkey filters (the black plus the fluoride filters underneath) rank the highest on nearly every category. The systems were designed to filter questionable water in shitty, war-torn, 3rd-world environments, so they knock out pathogens, volatiles, and heavy metals.

      Just because quacks may recommend a product doesn't necessarily mean it's snake oil.

    9. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Dr.+Bombay · · Score: 1

      One of the highest levels of room temperature liquids, 55 M (moles/liter).
      A half liter of beer has on the order of 1.6e25 molecules of that dangerous stuff!

    10. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I've discovered that it's actually cheaper for me to buy bottled water. A five-gallon jug runs about $7 (delivered; an empty will run about $25 with $1.75 refills; about half the cost after 15 fills) while one of those zero-water filters (here in Monterey, the water is so hard that the filter is only good for about five gallons) is $10-12.

    11. Re: You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that normal tap water contains almost A MILLION ppm DHMO!!!

    12. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by jason777 · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? Tell me exactly what is tainted.

    13. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DHMO is an acid with a pH of 7.

      That is higher than any other acid!

    14. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottled water is not as clean as you think it is... :)

    15. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems conspiracies could be his achilles heal even though they currently sell his products. Imagine what would happen if followers heard of saboteurs using his channel to poison the awakened ones.

    16. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1.25 to $1.50 for 5 gallon jug self serve where I am from vending dispenser. About $10 to buy the empty jug.

    17. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      Bottled water is not as clean as you think it is... :)

      I have a family member who works for a water district and he mentions periodically that the standards for drinking water are higher than the standards for bottled water.

    18. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      It sure as heck tastes better...the stuff out of my tap is undrinkable. I think the blind adherence to "standards" is slightly overblown anyway, driven by lawyers who make millions by suing the government.

    19. Re: You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always thought he maintained an excellent containment group.

    20. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filtering is not good enough. I distill my water. My counter top water distiller cost me about $200, and it is awesome.

      The Internet is full of people who, incorrectly, believe that distilled water is bad for you. This is utter ignorance. Here are some facts:

      1) Distilled water is NOT highly acidic. It is ph-neutral until it is exposed to air, at which point it becomes mildly acidic (less acidic than a banana, and thousands of times less acidic than soda pop). It will NOT mess with your PH levels, or leech calcium from your bones, that's ridiculous.

      2) Distilled water does NOT leech minerals from your body. It is true that your body adds electrolytes to water when you drink it, but the same is true of tap water as well; the dissolved minerals in tap water are usually not electrolytes, and are so minuscule as to not make a difference. Even so, you loose orders of magnitude more electrolytes from sweating than you will ever lose from your body injecting them into distilled water. This is only an issue for marathon runners, or people who are sick, because of all the sweating! In these cases, you must add electrolytes to water whether it is distilled or not. Abandon this nonsense, distilled water is the healthiest water available!

      3) Worried about losing other minerals? Eat ONE BITE of broccoli. There are more bio-available minerals in that than in a whole gallon of tap water.

      I live in a world where otherwise-intelligent people honestly think that pure water is worse for you than junk food. It's WATER for God's sake. I also don't understand why people say it tastes bad...it is delicious! Put distilled water in a cup and tap water in a cup and do a taste test. Seriously. People who think it is gross are nuts.

    21. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Get the Doulton filters though NOT the 'black berkey' filters. They usually let unfiltered water through IN MY EXPERIENCE.

    22. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The standards would be different except that bottled water is from the same sources. That is how bottled water is made. You buy already treated municipal water on a standard commercial contract, and move it from the pipe to the bottle.

      The places with the largest water volumes available have lower quality water that needs more treatment. The vast majority of people who have access to municipal water have better water locally than what is in the bottle. But if the water in your pipes sucks, then the bottled water is at least from a place with minimally good water.

    23. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by npslider · · Score: 1

      And to think we are spending billions of dollars to find more of this deadly substance on other worlds!

    24. Re:You need a water filter, ASAP. by npslider · · Score: 1

      It thought about going back to basic but it was stuck in neutral

  3. Well fuck .... I guess I have cancer now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck!

  4. Chemicals?! by TroII · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that! The orange cheeto people are trying to enslave us but I won't let them win.

    1. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't "dihydrogen monoxide", it's the class of compounds that includes C8, which was used in Teflon manufacture until recently. It never degrades and will last millions of years. It causes birth defects (reduced birth size, physical developmental delays, or miscarriage), cancer, and liver disease.

      Now "chemtrails" *are* bullshit.

    2. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it never degrades how does it cause birth defects. Sounds like bullshit to me.

      The fuck?!

    3. Re: Chemicals?! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Yeah but whenever a headline refers sloppily to "chemicals" even attempting to read the summary becomes a chore.

    4. Re:Chemicals?! by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      No worries! Only some oxygen dihydride was detected in your drinking water, in generally safe levels.

    5. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, most things that are poisonous poison you by reacting with something in your body. Inert things are rarely poisonous. Dioxins are one of the very few classes of relatively inert chemicals that are very toxic, and they have a very interesting non-reactive binding to a protein required for transcription and consequently doing weird shit to most everything a complex organism does. Most other inert chemicals, however, just pass through or get absorbed in fat and don't do much of anything.

    6. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never degrades implies that it is non-reactive, so there's no way your body is going to pick it up and incorporate it into your DNA (otherwise it would be reacting with the DNA in some manner and degrading.

    7. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      Asbestos never degrades either. It causes cancer when your DNA gets tangled on the needles.

    8. Re:Chemicals?! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      AC was pointing out that causing a birth defect is degrading the baby, thus if these contaminants never degrade, they can't cause birth defects.

    9. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefighting foams are really nasty stuff. The after cleaning of an air port fire involves removing the contaminated surface ground from the site.

    10. Re:Chemicals?! by TroII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Listen to this guy, he's talking about C8! What's he going to say next, C8N? Science, right? That's what scientists do, folks. They put C, and 8, and before you know it, Satan. Lots of people are saying MillionthMonkey is Satan. Really smart people, I have the best scientists, the ones who spray chemtrails over your homes, people. MillionthMonkey, right, I have a video, folks. The Secret Service is carrying a Valium injector around just to make sure this guy doesn't go low energy, you get what I'm saying? Parkinson's, people are saying Parkinson's, I'm not saying it, people are saying it. And this guy wants to talk about science? Can you believe this?

    11. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your comment seems to show it's too late for you. You've got the defects.

    12. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A compound doesn't have to undergo a chemical reaction to cause cancer. It can activate a receptor, attach itself to a binding site in an enzyme, or intercalate between DNA bases.

    13. Re:Chemicals?! by quenda · · Score: 3, Funny

      This isn't "dihydrogen monoxide", ... It never degrades and will last millions of years.

      DHMO can last millions of years, and is one of the leading causes of death in toddlers in the US.

    14. Re:Chemicals?! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Informative

      But dioxin is organic.

    15. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. DHMO degrades during photosynthesis for crying out loud.

    16. Re:Chemicals?! by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. The Intercept had a set of articles on what should be a scandal surrounding C8.

      Remember folks, when those politicians want to "eliminate regulations", they want to eliminate regulations that protect people from pollution such as this. They want to give companies a free pass on putting dangerous chemicals into the environment.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    17. Re: Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      no, it punches holes in cell membranes that tar from cigarettes then follows in. Asbestos fibers are much, much larger than DNA strands. Everyone who's gotten cancer from asbestos smoked.

    18. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, you're not allowed to use hairspray anymore because if affects the ozone. You know that, right? I said, "You mean to tell me"- because you know hairspray's not like it used to be, it used to be real good. Give me a mirror. But no, in the old days, you put the hairspray on, it was good. Today, you put the hairspray on, it's good for 12 minutes, right? I said, "Wait a minute- so if I take hairspray and if I spray it in my apartment, which is all sealed, you're telling me that affects the ozone layer?" "Yes." I say, no way, folks. No way! No way! That's like a lot of the rules and regulations you people have in the mines, right? It's the same kind of stuff.

    19. Re: Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hard times are ahead

    20. Re:Chemicals?! by mrbester · · Score: 1

      L'Oréal Elnette has been the hairspray of choice for decades, and still is. Other brands were crap so contributed to ozone depletion as you needed to use them more for the same effect.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    21. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      There are lots of chemicals that can make you look like an angry tangerine. Is he spraying ozone on his hair?

    22. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be more specific, they want to cut corners to raise the profit margins. The net result, is of course, pollution, and some rich assholes making more money. guillotine-time now #1789

    23. Re: Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go spouting those damned facts again

    24. Re: Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're completely wrong. Please educate yourself. -PCP

    25. Re:Chemicals?! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's true, but dioxin (specifically tetrachlorodibenzodioxin) is an organochlorine. Covalent bonds between carbon and chlorine are artificial. In nature chlorine is never found like that; it occurs as an ion or a mineral constituent. PFOAs have covalent bonds between carbon and fluorine, which are also artificial.

    26. Re:Chemicals?! by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      You know your apartment isn't sealed? Otherwise you'd be dead from oxygen deprivation. CFCs doesn't settle onto the walls and floors, it remains in the air inside the apartment which then makes its way outside when you open doors, windows etc later.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    27. Re: Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dumbass, the entrenched interests are paying pelvis and company to introduce regulations to prevent the possibility of competition.

    28. Re:Chemicals?! by skids · · Score: 1

      ...or just be a chemical catalyst.

    29. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touche!

    30. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it breaks down into two of the most deadly compounds known to science. One of them, in it's pure form, can cause people to spontaneously combust, for crying out loud, and the other is the direct cause of the Hindenburg disaster! Do we really want DHMO breaking down in our atmosphere????

    31. Re:Chemicals?! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3

      Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that! The orange cheeto people are trying to enslave us but I won't let them win.

      Yaeah, here's your arsenic trioxide sauce. Drinky up! I triple dog dare ya. It's a chemical, and anyone who thinks chemicals are bad is a kook.

      And how can there be radiation? How can something you can't even see be bad for you?

      I hope you realize you are just as silly and as unintelligent as the people you are mocking in your post.

      Here's a link for you to mock. http://www.nicole.org/uploaded...

      Now personally, I'd be more concerned about the estrogen mimics we are consuming in increasing amounts.

      http://www.environmentalhealth...

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

      Even (get ready for this) Fox News, has reported on this: http://www.foxnews.com/health/...

      And BPA isn't the only estrogen mimic. We are being hammered with Estrogen mimics, and with phytoestrogens from food.

      Now I do suspect unless you are a total misanthrope and just enjoy people's problems, that you don't really approve of this kind of stuff.

      But Bisphenol A is an example of a large scale experiment which has caused a lot of harm to humans and other creatures. We did the same with DDT, thalidomide, lead, and more. These PFA chemicals are a likely carcinogen, and since they take a heckava long time to break down, it becomes a real problem if/when that is confirmed. Aside from drinking water, there are some people, like firefighters, who are exposed to a huge amount when they use fire suppressant foam.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:Chemicals?! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      AC was pointing out that causing a birth defect is degrading the baby, thus if these contaminants never degrade, they can't cause birth defects.

      So tell us how catalysts work. Next tell us how a compound that "never degrades" is the final and fixed form of that chemical, and can no longer be used in any process because it will never react with anything.

      All chemicals can be broken down into their elemental components. This silly definition you and your AC bud are trying to impose upon PFAs indicate you think that an indestructable substance has been produced.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    33. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catalysis (/ktælss/) is the increase in the rate of a chemical reaction due to the participation of an additional substance called a catalyst[1] (/kætlst/). With a catalyst, reactions occur faster and require less activation energy. Because catalysts are not consumed in the catalyzed reaction, they can continue to catalyze the reaction of further quantities of reactant. Often only tiny amounts are required.[2]

    34. Re:Chemicals?! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      "Organic" in chemistry just means the molecule has carbon atoms. It's not a naturally occurring substance. Well, maybe small amounts in really hot forest fires.

    35. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to break it to you folks... but if it doesn't come from nature as it is, and is synthesized and manufactured by us... it's going to KILL you. Especially the further you go down the line from nature to synfacturing with it.

      Another fact...
      You're consumption is exceeding the capacity of the earth to replenish itself at the same rate.
      You and your future generations are fucked for what you do today.

    36. Re:Chemicals?! by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      This isn't "dihydrogen monoxide", it's the class of compounds that includes C8, which was used in Teflon manufacture until recently. It never degrades and will last millions of years. It causes birth defects (reduced birth size, physical developmental delays, or miscarriage), cancer, and liver disease. Now "chemtrails" *are* bullshit.

      So does drinking Pepsi and eating Papa Johns and breathing air.

    37. Re: Chemicals?! by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      You're completely wrong. Please educate yourself. -PCP

      Please don't cite Wikipedia as a legit source.

    38. Re:Chemicals?! by npslider · · Score: 1

      This isn't "dihydrogen monoxide", ... It never degrades and will last millions of years.

      I would say it is likely patented by Oracle, but they are incapable of making anything that lasts that long. Thus the reason we have not seen lawsuits over it's unlicensed use.

    39. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. It doesn't form H2, it converts NAD+ to NADH.

    40. Re:Chemicals?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://metacyc.org/META/substring-search?type=NIL&object=fluoroacetate&quickSearch=Quick+Search
      http://metacyc.org/META/substring-search?type=NIL&object=haloperoxidase&quickSearch=Quick+Search
        You are welcome!

  5. Baryonic matter by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Funny

    Being composed of baryonic matter exposes one to high levels of chemicals, especially for those living outside of the intergalactic voids. To avoid unwanted chemical reaction in proximity to galaxy clusters, convert your substrate entirely to dark matter.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  6. Everything is chemicals! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The day they find yoga mats are carcinogenic will be the happiest day in my life. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

    1. Re:Everything is chemicals! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The day they find yoga mats are carcinogenic will be the happiest day in my life.

      psst you're not supposed to eat them HTH HAND

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Everything is chemicals! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when you come into contact with them as much as the confused yoga practitioners do, you just might get some of the potentially cancer causing chemicals to rub off and enter the bloodstream. Then some particles may sublimate and get inhaled. There is more ways than just eating for carcinogens to cause problems. There may also be particles in the air that react with the particles in yoga mats becoming carcinogenic. I may not have even exhausted the possibilities. But anyways it's a quote from the YouTube song video linked.

  7. idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you forgot the referral link for that fraud.

  8. Mainly Democrat regions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the health officials just took the money.

    1. Re:Mainly Democrat regions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny, it's the republicans that are usually stripping the EPA.

    2. Re:Mainly Democrat regions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the EPA doesn't do its job, and in most cases more harm than good.

  9. Make America Cancer Again by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Hot spots seem to line-up with current and former military bases WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP US SAFE.

    Even back to the WWII-era Air Corps bases, spraying used oil to keep the weeds and grass in check.

  10. Re:Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    0.6% * 300 million = 1.8 million
    That's 600x as many as the number who died in the 9/11 attacks.

    Pikoro, always trivializing large populations.

  11. Six million sounds very low by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Maybe they mean six million out of every hundred thousand Americans. Eh, whatever, soon they'll be telling us how grateful we should be to have drinkable tap water at all. I suppose the bottling industry just got themselves some new promotional material.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: Six million sounds very low by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I'm sure we'll be drinking that stuff plants supossedly crave soon enough, but we'll also coincidentally be out of french fries.

    2. Re:Six million sounds very low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, six million sounds low. Trump got more than twice as many votes in the primaries, so there must be many more than six million Americans who are getting something weird in their drinking water.

    3. Re:Six million sounds very low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't they just bottle tap water ?

    4. Re: Six million sounds very low by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I'm sure we'll be drinking that stuff plants supossedly crave soon enough

      Brawndo! It's got electrolytes!

  12. Link to article by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1...

    It helps if there is a working link in TFS.

    1. Re:Link to article by ragahast · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I was trying all kinds of NoScript whitelisting until I realized what was going on.

      --
      .:Semper Absurda:.
    2. Re:Link to article by h4x0t · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Link to article by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1...

      It helps if there is a working link in TFS.

      Well, if I'm going to RTFA. I would have had no idea had you not pointed this out.

  13. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You fail to realize that there are quite a few bottling plants located in some of those high affected regions. Guess where all the Pepsi in the USA is made? Yep, right in the middle of this highest concentrations of both those chemicals on the map (eastern PA, NJ, southern NY). That also goes for all Pepsi products, not just Pepsi itself...

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  14. Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you have Republican rulers, of course they pollute your water for profit. Pollute your water for profit.

    1. Re: Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The republicans have destroyed Michigan. Destroyed Michigan.

    2. Re: Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the Republicans measure their success by the infant mortality rate. They're winning since they're killing so many babies. They hate babies.

    3. Re: Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? The party that is against abortion hates babies?

    4. Re: Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

      Maybe they love fetuses but hate babies. Or maybe they like control over women & still hate babies. Or maybe not, I'm not a Republican... or a Democrat for that matter. They do seem to hate infrastructure investment though.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    5. Re: Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by PPH · · Score: 1

      You seem to have an echo there. Check for a hollow cavity in your vicinity that might be causing it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Just look at what the Republicans did to MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AHAHHAAHAAHAHAA NO. Dems are scared shitless Michigan has been slowly turning from A Blue state to Red ever since Granholm tucked her tail between her legs and fled to go teach at liberal U aka (Berkeley CA). Snyder was guilty of trusting is federally (democrat controlled) EPA staff to give him correct info and they were wrong/ THEN he was noble enough to take the blame for it because he cares more about the people and state than his own career. This is a gov who didn't take a paycheck in the early years when Dems left this state in a complete mess and slowly it has been recovering through a bunch of conservative logical solutions that are driving Dems up the wall and I love it. This is a gov who stood up to corrupt teacher's unions and gave the state right to work laws. This is a gov who brought back jobs to the state.

      The butthurt liberal babies tried using corrupt national media to help stage a witch hunt and just like Mark Shauer who Dems said was going to win in a landslide against Snyder, it's just going to be another drizzle we get to sit back and laugh at.

  15. More than one type? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! The government is spraying chemtrails over my house and sometimes when I water my tomato plants I see rainbows in the water, you can't explain that!

    You do know there's more than one type of chemical, right?

    1. Re:More than one type? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There seems to be a new type of denier. Maybe we can call them "danger deniers" or something, or Famous Last Worders (FMLs). They think that because everyone else is an idiot something must be safe, be it a particular chemical or nuclear contamination or some machine.

      Examples:

      1. Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water!
      2. Oh noes, not noocular radiashun!!
      3. Statistically auto-pilot is safer than humans!
      4. Everything gives you cancer!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:More than one type? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      I came here to make fun of "chemicals" as well. It's not that I don't think this is a problem, it's that people use the word "chemicals" when they mean to say "dangerous chemicals". Water is a chemical. I'm made of chemicals. It's ignorant to use the generic word "chemical" when trying to scare someone.

    3. Re:More than one type? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      There seems to be a new type of denier. Maybe we can call them "danger deniers" or something, or Famous Last Worders (FMLs). They think that because everyone else is an idiot something must be safe, be it a particular chemical or nuclear contamination or some machine.

      Examples:

      1. Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water! 2. Oh noes, not noocular radiashun!! 3. Statistically auto-pilot is safer than humans! 4. Everything gives you cancer!

      Denier type behavior is more evident in those that ignore the body of scientific established data which show things to be of low risk compared to everyday risk exposures , yet they insist on assuming its really much worse or speak of those risks out of context. Your examples are hyperbolized generalizations of your own making, so you are displaying the exact behavior that you are citing.

    4. Re:More than one type? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Examples:
      1. Oh god, not chemicals! Tell me there's not dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water!
      2. Oh noes, not noocular radiashun!!
      3. Statistically auto-pilot is safer than humans!
      4. Everything gives you cancer!

      How do you feel justified lumping #3 in with the others? Statistics are the cornerstone of modern science. I don't know that I'd buy Musk's 50% statistic, but I'm actually only interested in statistics, and not appeals to emotion. At least there are some statistics that appear to support #3. All the statistics show that the class of contaminants we're currently talking about are harmful, so people in denial about it are provably denialists.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:More than one type? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It's ignorant to use the generic word "chemical" when trying to scare someone.

      The problem is that there's no one word with which people are familiar which tells the story correctly, and you really need to use one word because people are confused if you use two. Dangerous chemicals leads us into a discussion about how dangerous they are, weasel weasel weasel. Hazardous? More weaseling. What represents a hazard? So instead we just call them chemicals, and then the argument becomes "everything is a chemical", which is an obvious attempt to mislead from people who have nothing to contribute to the conversation which moves us ahead, but feel they have to chime in anyway.

      I remember the early days of the "ban DHMO" meme, because I know Craig and I've lived at the Marshmallow Peanut Circus and hung out at Darkwater during the time when it became a thing. I even participated in helping to spread it in its infancy. But now I regret it somewhat (not that I think it wouldn't have gone on without me) because I think it does more harm than good. Yes, "everything" is made up of chemicals. Yes, it's possible to attempt to mislead someone by talking about "chemicals" being in things, like food or water. However, it's far more common for people to try to mislead people by talking about how everything is a chemical, or a chemical compound.

      I'd love to see everyone including myself be more educated in chemistry; I got literally none of it outside of the absolutely most basic overview which is provided in a general freshman physics class. I wasn't in high school long enough to get any chemistry and it wasn't required in college, but did require more math than I had so I had to skip it — like it or not. But what I'd like even more than that is for intelligent people to stop giving corporations a bigger pass on their language than ordinary people who have been failed by the education system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:More than one type? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Tesla auto-pilot thing is a great example. As you point out, a cursory examination of the statistics seem to suggest that it is safer than a human driver. But the stats are misleading. It's only usable on certain, already very safe roads where humans also do a lot better than the average. The number of data points is fairly low at this stage, and the facts are disputed (Tesla say AP was not involved when the driver says it was). At the most, you can say it's too early to tell.

      And yes, my point was that Last Worders tend to ignore evidence or misunderstand it, instead reasoning that if stupid people are afraid of it then it must be safe. That tends to lead to some confirmation bias and an effort to research justifications for their position.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:More than one type? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Except that C8 is actually pretty bad for you, which means you just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about and get to be the first person called a Last Worder in public. Congrats.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:More than one type? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The health impact of C8 has zero to do with my comment, nor did a say in any way it was or was not pretty bad for you. That you somehow applied that to me is a case of making a false argument, which you again demonstrated quite clearly.

  16. Greetings, Starfighter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greetings, Starfighter.

    Greetings, Starfighter. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan armada.

  17. 6 Million is a Gross Underestimation by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2, Informative

    The contamination areas includes, Southern California, Northern California, Central California, Texas and large swaths of the Eastern United States (from the Great Lakes to Massachusetts) and down the seaboard to Florida. I would say 6 million is a gross underestimation - considering how much produce is shipped outside of California,and the population density in the affected areas.

    1. Re:6 Million is a Gross Underestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck your attempt at FUD. Captcha : HUBRIS

    2. Re:6 Million is a Gross Underestimation by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      The contamination areas includes, Southern California, Northern California, Central California, Texas and large swaths of the Eastern United States (from the Great Lakes to Massachusetts) and down the seaboard to Florida. I would say 6 million is a gross underestimation - considering how much produce is shipped outside of California,and the population density in the affected areas.

      Not to mention the Twin Cities, Chicago, Detroit (big surprise), and Seattle to name a few more affected areas.

    3. Re:6 Million is a Gross Underestimation by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Informative
      From TFA;

      exceed what the Environmental Protection Agency considers healthy.

      Actually, this is not true. What is exceeded is the regulated or recommended limit, which is set lower, usually much lower, than what they consider safe or 'not healthy' from scientific evidence. Now, that doesn't mean we should be OK with the situation, so don't go off getting mad at me for no reason, I'm just pointing out a commonly seen misrepresentation of facts that bugs me.

    4. Re:6 Million is a Gross Underestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right-ish. What they want, ideally, is the NOEL -- No Observable Effect Level. At a minimum, they want a maximum level that is 100 times less than the harmful level.

      Unless it's fluoride. Then it can be at or even one thousand times above the harmful level -- "Make sure you don't swallow that 20,000 ppm dental gel..."

    5. Re:6 Million is a Gross Underestimation by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      The maps are misleading and alarmist. According to the original journal study the map makers colored entire aquifers based on some level of PFOA/PFOS contamination somewhere within it. However, aquifers extend for hundreds of miles below ground with many variations within, like any natural system, and local geologic variations in the aquifer system will greatly effect the distribution of contamination in groundwater. If one area of an aquifer is contaminated that doesn't mean all groundwater within the aquifer is contaminated. Furthermore, I happen to live in one of those dark shaded areas, and the community drinking well in my town was recently tested for PFOA and the results are much lower and not consistent with the map. Suffice to say the maps in the article do not reflect actual conditions, but they are really catchy visuals for a journalist trying to sell a story!

      I also happen to be an environmental consultant and licensed geologist for what ever that's worth to people. For those worried about PFOA/PFOS I'll give you a tip... If you have a private drinking well and live within ~1 mile of a current or former military base, airport, refinery, or major chemical manufacturer, then you might want to test your well for peace of mind. Those are the main culprits who used and discharged those chemicals (for fire-fighting foams) and they are all scrambling now to figure if they have a problem with it and if so, to what extent.

  18. Drinking water in oil ? by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> .... Chemicals in drinking water ...
    Wot ??? There is drinking water in my oil ????

    --
    aaaaaaa
  19. USA , USA !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #1 3rd world nation !!

  20. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The commercial bottled water plants which use tap water (Pepsis/Aquafina, Coca Cola/Dasani, etc) use reverse osmosis on the tap water before bottling. Reverse osmosis removes all PFASes.

    It's actually "natural" spring water in affected areas you have to worry about. They can pick up these substances from the environment.

  21. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by KeithIrwin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Guess where all the Pepsi in the USA is made?

    Hmm, I'm going to guess "at regional bottling plants run by different bottling companies who franchise from PepsiCo", because that is in fact how it actually works. There is no one factory which makes the Pepsi for the whole country. Heck, most large metropolitan areas have their own bottling plant which uses the local water, so there's not even usually one source per state.

    Perhaps you've confused your regional Pepsi bottler for the only source of Pepsi in the US because you don't understand what's going on at all.

  22. Population control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is u.s.a version of population control. And a win for the medical establishment.

    I am of course being completely sarcastic but this sounds more like a third world country problem than a first world one. The scientists knew the substances are hazardous but FDA and EPA do nothing???

  23. 99.983% of Americans Not Exposed To Dangerous Chem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fixed it for you.

  24. Wow, NJ really is the "armpit of America" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *ducks*

    1. Re:Wow, NJ really is the "armpit of America" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ducks*

      Newark NJ does have a pretty distinctive foul odor to it. It is sort of like Feet mixed with Cat urine and fart. It is everywhere in that town too.

  25. Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemicals by DatbeDank · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The more startling aspect of this drinking water pollution are the levels of xenoestrogens. Between HFCS, sedentary lifestyles, and now all sorts of medical chemicals floating around in our drinking water humans are suffering a, "death by a thousand cuts" so to speak. Hormone disrupting chemicals are affecting wild animals as well.

    You can fight most of these, but some are more nefarious. I drink upwards of a gallon of water a day because of my work. Thankfully it's a very active (foreman) gig, but at the same time it still has me concerned. I can't use my reverse osmosis home system when i'm away at work!

  26. Is it really so hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can't we as a population not dumb down our language. Can't we say "unhealthy chemicals" instead of unadorned "chemicals". I am exposed to 100% chemicals in my drinking water, mainly the very dangerous dihydrogen mon-oxide.

  27. Re:99.983% of Americans Not Exposed To Dangerous C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99.999% of americans not affected by terrorism.

  28. Re:Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See there on the first map, that really dark spot in western Ohio? *I grew up right in the middle of it.*

    Idiot.

  29. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do you think is putting the chemicals in the ground water in the first place?

  30. Re:Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't use my reverse osmosis home system when i'm away at work!

    Perhaps you could transport a gallon of water from your home to your work site each day. -PCP

  31. Re:Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. This guy's supposed to be a (presumably) construction foreman, but he's unaware of gallon jugs?

  32. Missing information by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

    Exposure is only part of the toxicological equation. Is there causal (not just an associated) evidence of harm? Do we know what dose is necessary to cause this harm, and what the likelihood of harm is at a particular does? The EPA does an excellent job of surveillance. Unfortunately they do a less than stellar job of confirming there is a problem before someone turns exposure data into the basis for a panicked article about the latest "chemical".

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Missing information by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Exposure is only part of the toxicological equation. Is there causal (not just an associated) evidence of harm?

      Why should that be the bar? I want "pure" (clean) water to put into my body. If we're unsure whether something will affect me, I don't want it in there. At home, I use a RO system to make sure that's the case; even if the RO filter fails there's multiple carbon filters between the well and my face. But out in the world, what kind of garbage is in the water? Even if I eschew everyone else's water, I'm still going to get it in my food.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Missing information by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Pure water isn't really an option at the municipal level. Even after the water leaves he plant it has to move through miles of pipes to get to your tap, and frequently the city that owns the plant and the city that owns the pipes serving your house are not the same cities. Never mind that the quality of the pipes IN your home can matter as well.

      There is a practically infinite number of chemicals that can dissolve in water that would need to be tested forth confirm that the water is pure. And we need to deal with the fact that this is the real world and money/time/equipment/etc are finite resources. I'm not meaning to say that the EPA shouldn't find out what is there, but simply that the presence of a chemical is not enough to indicate anything nefarious. The next step is to determine if there is any reason for concern. They have a program right now screening chemicals for endocrine disruption potential. And not just at any concentration, but at the concentrations seen in the real world (the dose makes the poison after all). However, until we have more reason to be concerned than "look what we found" we should refrain from freakingn everyone out to no benefit.

      Look at all of the scares around BPA. We were told it's everywhere, and collectively freaked out. Replacing it with other chemicals that are just as poorly understood. but when the tests were actually performed it was shown that while it *can* act as an endocrine disrupters in cell culture, it is so rapidly detoxified and excreted in the urine that the levels seen in people and water are well below any level of concern.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  33. Re:Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemic by StormReaver · · Score: 1

    I can't use my reverse osmosis home system when i'm away at work!

    While I don't need a gallon during a typical work day, I do bring my reverse osmosis water with me to work in two large, stainless steel bicycle bottles.

    As you probably already know, reverse osmosis is the only way to get rid of this type of crap (including fluoride).

  34. hard to do by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    It's not entirely the EPA's fault. It is quite difficult to prove that some level of exposure will not cause harm. However, since the EPA is influenced by political whim...

    1. Re:hard to do by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, if you prove that chemical A is dangerous, but the company wants to use it, they could change it very slightly and then now it is chemical B. Chemical B may be biologically equivalent in the manner that A was dangerous, but it isn't A anymore, so unless they wrote the ban broadly then now we are just getting cancer from B instead. If they did write the ban broadly, perhaps now chemical C is illegal but was actually benign. It isn't an easy solution.

    2. Re:hard to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chemical B can be worse than chemical A. They don't have to prove its safe before using it. Once the chemical is shown undeniably to be "the worst one yet" they will switch to chemical C or D.

  35. "6 million" sounds bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Under 2%" sounds a lot better.

  36. Re:99.983% of Americans Not Exposed To Dangerous C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6m of 324m is 1.9% i.e. the % of USicans that are not exposed to the particular chemicals in TFA is what? That in my view is too few. All should be exposed and die but then again at least the two clowns trying to get to the box with cohdes will always survive - life is hard. By I digress - you cannot count cowboy. Go back to school.

  37. Gobal issue by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    I hear the entire world is consuming a ton of chemicals in their water, mostly DMHO

    1. Re:Gobal issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but as long as it's properly filtered, then stored in air-tight plastic drums, we can keep DHMO safe underground for thousands of years.

  38. Re:Ahh by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that dark area in the Southern tip of NY and that Long Island near it, nobody lives in that area of the country.

  39. They have it too low!!! by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 0

    About 350 million Americans are exposed to the highly corrosive solvent Dihydrogen Monoxide in their drinking water EVERY DAY!

  40. I live there by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

    Ah, New Jersey; the land where every puddle has it's own rainbow!

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
  41. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It's actually "natural" spring water in affected areas you have to worry about. They can pick up these substances from the environment.

    My well is obviously "under surface influence" (as are most wells) so I have a RO unit (an old one by Premier, which was very expensive a long long time ago. Luckily it was a gift) to solve this problem. But actual spring water can come from sufficiently far away and have enough natural filtering that this isn't a problem. Or an earthquake can change your water source and contaminate it overnight without any human influence at all. Hooray for filtration!

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  42. Re:Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemic by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    I run out half way through the day and need a refill. Carrying around such a big jug of water is difficult already!

  43. The good news ... by PPH · · Score: 0

    ... is that these 6 million are all lab rats living in California.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  44. EWG says the EPA limit is too high. by generic_screenname · · Score: 2

    I'll just leave this here. http://www.ewg.org/research/te...

  45. Flint, MI by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

    My first reaction: Wow, I didn't know Flint, MI, has 6M residents!

    My second reaction: Hey, the residents of Flint, MI are not alone!

    My third reaction: Boy, am I glad I have an RO system at home, and filtered water at work.

    My funny bone is battling with my logical brain over this one. The local News at 6 PM might have more information about that battle. Or maybe not.

    1. Re:Flint, MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first reaction: Wow, I didn't know Flint, MI, has 6M residents!

      That's the number of registered voters there. It is deeply blue you know.

    2. Re:Flint, MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flint was 18 million in debt before the water scandal broke, and it was all because the city was waiting for more handouts instead of taking the state's offer to build a new pipeline which would have created 1000+ jobs for 2+ years or pay more for Detroit city water which is expensive due to union labor. Instead they had a city council meeting and voted for option 3 which was to connect 60+ year old pipes back to the city line and use river water. The (dem controlled) EPA said the water was fine, even AFTER independent sources raised alarm bells. Snyder went with the EPA's word and got burned. What the morons didn't account for was the elevated levels of toxicity in the Flint River water was enough to eat away at the protective layer of lead in the old pipes and that's how it got into the drinking water.

      Here's a chart from January 2016 when the story was really hot and even left-learning biased Vox had an article about how not even half the states have to report their water contamination issues, but that the worse contamination reported is right along major waterways like the great lakes/mississippi and severely affects traditional democratic rust belt states where democratic governing has ruined those once beautiful parts of the country.

      Hearing liberals crying crocodile tears over the Flint Crisis and they are delicious ones at that.

    3. Re:Flint, MI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forgot the vox link: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10811004/lead-poisoning-cities-us

      6 million is nothing compared to the water problems in other democrat/left controlled states. They don't care if the people are poisoned, can't speak the language, have family ties to terrorism, corrupt, etc.... just as long as they are dumb enough to vote.

  46. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    Reverse osmosis removes all PFASes [waterrf.org].

    According to this publication RO removes 86% of PFAS. It also mentions that the rejected water has considerably higher concentration of PAFS. So anywhere that has a bottling plant with high concentrations is going to continually get worse as the rejected water is dumped into the sewer or directly back into the water table. Regardless it ends up back in the local water supply as standard filtration at sewage treatment plants isn't much help.

  47. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do you think is putting the chemicals in the ground water in the first place?

    Progressives. They want us, but not themselves, to die to save the planet.

  48. I'd add an extra zero after the number six. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's how most of U.S tap water tastes like. Disguising, chlorine-laden brew far removed from standards of civilised parts of Europa.

  49. What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How old are you? You haven't figured out a way to bring a gallon of filtered water with you yet? And you're a foreman?

    We're all fucked.

  50. Is this a partisan issue? by Simulant · · Score: 1

    Or can we all agree the the federal government should ensure that the entire population has safe drinking water?

    From the looks of that chart, it seems I need to buy a filter or bottled water now. Not fucking happy about that.

  51. Re: Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .6% population lives matter.

  52. Re: Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A good portion of Upstate NY'rs wish that were true.

  53. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that reverse osmosis also removes everything else, including trace nutrients that you need to live. Humans evolved to drink natural water and acquire some nutrients that way.

  54. Re:Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reverse osmosis might remove harmful chemicals but it's not healthy... natural water contains trace nutrients that you need to live and reverse osmosis removes them

    People thinking reverse osmosis water is healthy is the same as people that think they need to eliminate every single bit of salt from their diet. You do that and you will die.

  55. Re:Xenoestrogens, fluoride, and other nasty chemic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reverse osmosis is not that great of a filtration method, Distillation is the only true way to filter water. everything else lets particles through.

  56. Re:Ahh: More than you think: Bottling plants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess where all the Pepsi in the USA is made?

    Hmm, I'm going to guess "at regional bottling plants run by different bottling companies who franchise from PepsiCo", because that is in fact how it actually works. There is no one factory which makes the Pepsi for the whole country. Heck, most large metropolitan areas have their own bottling plant which uses the local water, so there's not even usually one source per state.

    Perhaps you've confused your regional Pepsi bottler for the only source of Pepsi in the US because you don't understand what's going on at all.

    Why can't anyone post effing informative information without ending it with a "but you're stupid" termination clause? It just makes you look like a raised-pinky, nose in the air, "I'm better than you all because I have information in my head" prick. State your facts; people read them. They appreciate them. Also, keep in mine that if you were having a face-to-face discussion with someone about the same material, your attitude and presentation would be quite different, or you'd be leaving with a bloody nose or worse.

    "But obviously you don't understand politeness and effective communication methods at all." There, I said it for you to save you the time.